Thread: Inaccurate Cartridges

So yesterday thanks to kiwi greg I had a bit of schooling on the 22 terminator and its lineage.
Delving further I encountered a whole raft of cartridges described as being known for their superb accuracy. This got me thinking has anyone heard of one described as being superbly innacurate?
I know most of the influencing factors are bullet construction and design, rifling twist rate, barrel construction, bore tolerance, condition and concentricity, action type and rigidity etc and of course the "nut behind the butt"
I know we all have personal favourites and pet hates, mention 270 or 243 here and see what happens but all that aside assuming all of these thing are sorted are there really any cartridges that would have trouble hitting a flock of barns at 10 paces?

i cant say i have heard of a inherently inaccurate cartridge, especially if you bring the times they were developed in as a factor, a .45/70 isnt going to compete with a 6mm PPC etc . . . would think the quality of the 3 Bs are more important, Barrel, Bullet & Bedding for most applications . . . . something to think about today as i drive . . cheers

Never seen a half Moa .303

Originally Posted by 7mm300wby

Never seen a half Moa .303

someone on the forum will be thinking, that sounds like a challenge.....

What's the better groove barrel to go for in the 303?.... I see some nice spotters come up for sale for not much.

Sporters

A new Fulton regulated No4 was good for .75moa with MkVII issue ball back in the fifties. One could probably have got better with hand loading

Originally Posted by 7mm300wby

Never seen a half Moa .303

A P14 will do it with target ammo. Mk 7 service was fit for purpose and produced at astronomical rates.
In this case the bad reputation is mostly due to the state of the rifles being used.

2 groove rifles are not necessarily less accurate than the 5 groove ones but they seem to do better with flat base bullets

22 Magnum comes to mind. Not known for good accuracy, compared to it's little brother anyway.

I have a Marlin 25NM in .22WM and it with Hornady ammo shots half moa with ease even with me behind the trigger.

same/similar bore diametre...the 7.62x39mm doesnt spring to mind as being a tack driver....doesnt need to be for its intended purpose. which leads thought process onto individual rounds DESIGNED to tumble etc....

Nah my NEA 7.62x39 shoots just as well as equivalent 5.56 rifles.

It has a lot to do with the rifles designed to shoot the cartridge.

I must admit that I cannot think of any off the top of my head. I would put the 7.62x39 down as a likely contender, not because of calibre, but because a very large portion of the ammunition made for this calibre is MilSurp and is not as consistant with good quality sporting ammo. Put decent ammo through and mostly, they improve a lot, but the popularity is around the price of the cheaper ammo and the fact that with that accuracy drop it is still effective and practical at the range most use it for means you dont gain enough to justify decent ammo.

It performs well at closer ranges up to about 150 metres so ideal for close bush work. at that range a 7inch group at 100m will still be on the money on a deer or pig at 150m. So dropping it to a 1 or half inch group at 100m would be pointless unless you are shooting at smaller harder to hit targets in which case most would go for a smaller cheaper calibre like a 22.

223 if ya tell me you own a 1:8 that shoots any ammo accurately, with proof I'd buy it!! fussy as, no I don't want to hand load!!